A decision not to imprison the perpetrator of what was described as “one of the worst cases of enduring domestic violence” the island’s courts had ever seen was considered by the Court of Appeal this morning.

The judges will now have to decide whether the community sentence order given to Terence Michael Tremarco (61) last year was too lenient.

Tremarco pleaded guilty to nine counts of grave and criminal assault and one of assault against a woman between 1994 and 2000 – some of which left his victim fearing for her life.

He was given 456 hours’ community service for the attacks by the Royal Court when he was sentenced in September.

Tremarco did not receive a domestic abuse protection order under the Domestic Abuse Law 2022, but was given a five-year restraining order. 

“Unduly lenient”?

News of the sentencing decision was met with significant criticism from islanders and campaigners – including the leader of a gender-based violence taskforce – who said they were concerned about the message the ruling sends to perpetrators and victims.

Asked by Express whether they would appeal the sentence, Law Officers’ Department last year said it was “considering” the controversial domestic abuse judgment.

In November, they were given permission to appeal the case.

The sentencing decision was brought to the court under Article 45A of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law 1961, which states that the Attorney General can refer a case to the Court of Appeal for a sentencing review if it is “unduly lenient”.

“A real threat to life”

Crown Advocate Luke Sette appeared in front of the Court of Appeal this morning to appeal the sentence on behalf of the Attorney General.

He claimed that the Royal Court had under-valued the impact of deterrence, and over-valued the effect of the mitigation available to Tremarco.

Crown Advocate Sette stressed that the victim had endured long-lasting harm, suffering with symptoms of PTSD until today, and said that “the harm caused was not only physical, but psychological”.

She had also suffered several injuries, he said, with some traces of the offending still visible today.

He added that a sentence shouldn’t just deter an individual offender but also deter others from offending.

Tremarco’s attacks included several instances of non-fatal strangulation, which Crown Advocate Sette today said was a threat to the victim’s life.

“Non-fatal strangulation is associated with severe trauma in its victims and is in fact experienced as a real threat to life,” he said.

“It is an experience of potential death.”

He cited research by Dr Jane Monckton-Smith – a leading academic in the area of domestic homicide – saying that non-fatal strangulation is one of the leading predictors of homicide in a relationship.

Visible injuries weren’t enough to demonstrate its impact, he said, adding that it wasn’t clear whether the victim had had a neurological assessment.

Crown Advocate Sette stressed Tremarco’s “abuse of trust or power”, adding that the assaults had happened under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The woman was entitled to feel safe in her own home and the assaults were committed by someone who should have had her best interests in mind, he said.

The Crown Advocate asked the court to give Tremarco a five-year custodial sentence – the same sentence that he asked for during the original Royal Court sentencing hearing.

“An exceptional case“

But Advocate Greg Herold-Howes, defending, argued that Tremarco’s sentence may have been lenient, but it was not “unduly” lenient.

“This is a sentence [which] while the court may conclude that it is lenient, it cannot conclude that it was unduly so,” he said.

Advocate Herold-Howes reminded the court that Tremarco had spent 24 years rehabilitating himself and that the community service would be the final step he had to take.

“I think the court can quite comfortably find that this is an exceptional case,” he said.

Tremarco has complied with the community service order and has already served more than 100 hours of his community service, the court heard.

Quizzed by the judges on whether the passage of time was enough to warrant special circumstances, Advocate Herold-Howes said it that it was the combination of a number of factors that warranted the exceptional treatment.

If the case had been heard immediately after the offending, asking for a non-custodial sentence would have been unrealistic, the advocate admitted.

The court reserved its judgement and said it hoped to share its decision during the course of this Court of Appeal sitting.

The Bailiff, Sir Timothy Le Cocq, was presiding with Court of Appeal judges Clare Montgomery and Michael Furness.

Follow Express for updates…